“The most funny thing in all these Brenus' anti-NATO philippics is the fact that they come from a person who at least once (in Bosnia) was instrumental in NATO's depredations. I wonder where is genuine Brenus - the one that is now denouncing NATO's hideous ways or the one who put his signature against his name on the payroll and got his salary from NATO.” The funniest thing in your smear campaign is you get all wrong as usual.
My time in the Army (and France was not part of NATO at that times) is from 1979 to 1984).
Bosnian wars started in 1992. I know you don’t really care of facts but it was still 8 years later.

So, what will you find now in order to attack the person and not the arguments?

The other unexpected effect of your ill-informed statement is it looks you think to work with or for NATO is something to be ashamed of… You are free to think so, but I want to emphasize I am not of this opinion. Some of my best friends worked for NATO.

“What is then the purpose to talk and negotiate with Putin?” The same than for Russia to talk to NATO/EU/US liars: To try to find a solution. From Russian’s point of view, all promises made after the USSR collapse were broken, so perhaps it is time to re-built some bridges.

“I speak of wars IN THE NEAR VICINITY.” Ooh, you change your stance again. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, to recognise your mistakes. So Afghanistan is not in Russian’s vicinity? And which war in near vicinity Russia did start, invade? I am writing “start”.

“Russia has NEVER been attacked by any of NATO members” Which NATO member has been attacked by Russia?

“And Russia think so too” Oops, again your weak point, understanding wording: De-escalation (lowering down tensions) in not withdrawing from a association or organism.
You might have mixed-up because withdrawing military equipment is part of de-escalate a conflict.